Call Congress Today And Let Them Know (Again) That You Are Against SOPA

from the they-don't-seem-to-be-getting-the-message dept

Rep. Lamar Smith is getting ready to cement his legacy as passing the first bill to create a permanent "black list" of censored websites in the US... and most of Congress still doesn't understand that the American public is vehemently coming out against this bill. It's very, very likely that Smith will get the Judiciary Committee to approve the bill tomorrow, at which point it could go to a full vote on the floor at any time. Yes, a bunch of the members of the Judiciary Committee plan to vote to censor the internet tomorrow, and they still don't believe the public cares about this. That's why plenty of people are calling in today to let them know that we don't appreciate the internet being censored:

We're hearing reports that a ton of calls are being generated, and there are discussions all over Twitter and Facebook from people who normally don't pay attention to any of this -- all coming out against censoring the internet.

And, once again, the pro-SOPA forces seem to be coming up totally empty. That's because there is no public support for their position. A few weeks ago, the astroturfing group from Hollywood, CreativeAmerica, specifically put out a call for supporters of SOPA to reach out to Rep. Jared Polis, one of the growing number of Congressional Reps who have come out vehemently against SOPA. In an interview yesterday, Polis noted that he has not received a single call in favor of SOPA, but tons against it.

We've heard the same thing from many folks in Congress... and yet Lamar Smith and the supporters of this bill still are pushing it through and are still insisting that the public supports them. Today is the day to let them know they're wrong.

I think one problem is that many people calling don't vote. Sure they vote for president, but they generally ignore senator and congressmen elections and so when congress gets all these calls they probably estimate how many of the people who call actually vote and if the numbers are low they tend to ignore the calls.

Re:

Let's see...occupy is fighting for greater equality and the rights of the regular person.
SOPA is about restricting or removing our rights censorship and enrichment of the few. So your comparison fails miserably.
I know you can't really believe that regular people want censorship and the stifling of innovation. You aren't going to pull the wool over the eyes of many people here.

Re:

You know I like comments like yours. They amuse me. Because of how adult they sound.

"You're full of shit Masnick" seems to be the general statement in them.

"You're a minority, not everyone is a thief" seems to be the next general statement in them.

Okay, so my question is simply this, if Mike is full of shit, these bills are definitely going to pass, and the freeloaders are a minority with no actual support where it counts... why say anything/come to this site at all?

You've already won and are going to have your way in a week or so. So what's the worry? And don't say you aren't worried, if you weren't, you wouldn't come here day in and day out to say what you do. You're in the right, you're going to get things to go the way you want, etc. (per your comments) You've already won. If I win something, I won't mention it again or even bother acknowledging what else other people say that differs from my victory. Why? Because I won.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but I don't get what the point of your daily visits are. There are a few sites where you can go duke it out verbally with people just for sport. Why not visit one of those? If your intent is to just insult others with differing viewpoints. I'm sure you'll meet your match elsewhere. (As if you haven't already met it here.)

Re:

Re: Re:

Because what Masnick and the rest of the Google astro turfing groups are doing is disgusting. Using lies about censoring the internet and scare tactics because they have faulty business models based on piracy.

Re: Re:

I was sure Mike's business model ideas are CONNECT WITH FANS (CwF) and give them REASONS TO BUY (RtB).

Or my take on it, Connect with Fans, Reap the Benefits. A happy fan is willing to give you more of their money.

But I'm glad you cleared up Mike's business model.

What's amusing is that he has one that is at least adapting with the times. Whereas you and your kind don't. Kind of makes you wonder who the really innovative ones really are and who seems to has more business sense.

Guy willing to change and reap the benefits of changing. Or the guy willing to cross his arms and say "nope, not interested" and then b*tch that things have changed around him and he's missing out.

If the pirates can make money, why can't the studios/labels who produce the content? That's the real question at the end of the day. They are the ones creating the product after all. And heck, others are even willing to do all the real work. Spotify, Pandora, iTunes, Netflix, etc. So why are they still failing to adapt to changing markets when they've been shown the way by such hugely successful ventures? Stupidity me thinks.

Re: Re:

Re:

"It's sort of hard to get people to call in to support 'law and order'." Riiiiight. That's why every candidate, for every office in the country, campaigns with a "touch on crime" stance. No sizzle. Would never get out the vote.

I think what you mean is that "[i]t's sort of hard to get people to call in to support 'law and order' when it's clear that your interest in 'law and order' is limited to 'laws and orders that get you paid handsomely and about which you cannot engage in a coherent conversation'."

Re: Re: Re:

"I was sure Mike's business model ideas are CONNECT WITH FANS (CwF) and give them REASONS TO BUY (RtB)."

Yup, and one of the best ways to "CwF" online is to push your music out to all sorts of outlets - including torrents and pirate sites.

The only way that "infinite distribution" (which is key in Mike's view of music and movies) is to have enough people willing to do the distribution for nothing - and that happens on... DING!... torrent sites. Without P2P, there is no infinite distribution, and suddenly music is back in the realm of supply and demand.

"If the pirates can make money, why can't the studios/labels who produce the content?"

A standard and very stupid question. Piracy sites make money because they have little or no overhead, no cost for content, and no ongoing costs past their hosting. Since they don't pay for anything, of course they make money.

The labels? Damn, they actually have to invest in bands, pay them, pay commission on sales, etc. It's fucking horrible when your business actually has expenses to deal with.

Re: Re:

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) should be fighting for ...

1) An end to the high court, low court thing going on in the US and around the world.
2) An end to regulatory capture.
3) An end to rushed laws, (like this one) with a 6 month or more period of public input.
4) The ability to vote no confidence on any politician.

Re: Re: Re:

Ah I see. That explains why those Hollywood studios set up that "grassroots" campaign that got exposed as being anything but to get people to support what they wanted them to. You know, asking people to sign this and then not letting them change the letter. Misleading them into thinking they were signing something else.

And that explains those scare tactics about failing industries and massive losses and layoffs. You know, to sustain faulty business models based on outdated and irrelevant to the current times practices.

Yep, so what you're really saying is. "Do as we say, not as we do. Or else you're a big meanie!" It's all fun and games when one side does it, when the other decides to take a page from their book suddenly there's cries of "foul".

I think the real slimeball here might be you and the people you support. Just a thought.

Oh, as for Mike and Google and you know those companies/people all against SOPA/PIPA (of which it isn't "just a few"), they're doing nothing but explaining to others how the bills AS WRITTEN can be used (and potentially will be, because as history has shown us, laws as written and wanted to be used, are anything but, they're routinely bent out of shape and used as seen fit, especially if worded just so). If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should speak to those you support about rewriting the bills just so, to be more exact in their wording. That way Mike and Google and everyone else can shut up and be put in their place. You know, the opposite of how they're written now.

Re: Re:

It's the same thing. The Occupy people (a very small minority of the population) are attempting to act like the 99%. The opponents of SOPA are trying to act like they have the majority in the debate, mostly because of the actions of astroturf smelling groups propped up by Google and others. The reality? They ain't the 99%, they are the 1% or less...

So it's the same thing - people yelling really loud and accomplishing very little, and not really representing the majority at all.

Re: Re:

dwg, "law and order" is great at election time, but most people won't get out of their chairs for a law and order issue the rest of the time, especially if it doesn't relate to dead bodies on the sidewalk in front of their house.

Your "fix" is a collection of misrepresentations and lies. Stop trying to fix my stuff by adding bullshit.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Yup, and one of the best ways to "CwF" online is to push your music out to all sorts of outlets - including torrents and pirate sites."

And that is wrong how exactly? Torrent sites are legal. Some of the content on them however may not be. Big difference. Me thinks thou should learn the distinction.

"The only way that "infinite distribution" (which is key in Mike's view of music and movies) is to have enough people willing to do the distribution for nothing - and that happens on... DING!... torrent sites. Without P2P, there is no infinite distribution, and suddenly music is back in the realm of supply and demand."

Infinite distribution is achieved as easy as possible online. Put something out there. Be it on a server to be viewed/listened to by all or by putting it up on a file locker or by putting it on a torrent site. Either way, it's infinitely distributable as long as the file is there. Once removed, infinite distribution goes away. This has nothing to do with P2P. P2P, however, does allow one to put something out there to be distributed infinitely at little to no expense to oneself (in regards to distributing whatever it is you want to distribute).

iTunes is infinite distribution. Until iTunes servers go down or what have you. It's readily available at any moment for people to get.

"A standard and very stupid question. Piracy sites make money because they have little or no overhead, no cost for content, and no ongoing costs past their hosting. Since they don't pay for anything, of course they make money."

And you'd know all about standard and very stupid, as a troll, you do both on a regular basis. Piracy sites DO NOT make money. Lol. Unless by "make money" you mean through advertisements. They have to pay server and bandwidth cost out of their own pockets.

Either way, so what you're saying is they make money. Well ignore that most don't for the moment. So you're saying, the studios/labels can't make money then? At all. By doing the same thing. Putting their content out their for sale. I see, so Netflix/iTunes/Spotify/Pandora are all ACTUALLY NOT making money? Is that what you're saying?

"The labels? Damn, they actually have to invest in bands, pay them, pay commission on sales, etc. It's fucking horrible when your business actually has expenses to deal with."

Indeed. It's horrible that they have to invest in bands (who then have to pay back said investment before they can get any kind of cut of the profits). It's horrible that they have to pay commission on sales (a very fractional percentage of a sale at that). It's horrible when your business actually has expenses to deal with (as ALL businesses do, so what's the big deal).

"Me thinks you got stupidity down pat."

Back at you, sunshine. In fact, I think you're the champ around here. We all acknowledge that fact.

Re: Re: Re:-P

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If they can't figure out how to make money in the digital age without trampling the rights of the general population, then let them close up shop, I really don't care, odds are someone else will figure it out without requiring protection from the government. Otherwise there are many other distractions that can be utilized in ones free time.

Oh but what about the the jobs, you say? Jobs should not be saved if they are no longer necessary. Every last bit of new technology has caused the loss of some kind of job, thats the point, to make things easier so not so many people are needed to get things done, the idea is that companies become more profitable as a result.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Torrent sites are legal. Some of the content on them however may not be. Big difference. Me thinks thou should learn the distinction."

See, because you play ignorant, you don't understand the implications of own words.

Torrent sites exist only because of piracy - without piracy, without the "free hollywood / software / music content" bonanza, nobody would bother to install something that leeches off half their bandwidth every month.

Without piracy, there would be no audience for torrents. There would be no magical "infinite distribution", and the game would be over.

"iTunes is infinite distribution. Until iTunes servers go down or what have you. It's readily available at any moment for people to get."

Sorry, but Itunes is very limited distribution - not infinite. They can make and distribute copies for a low price (but never zero). Bandwidth, server, electricity... it's all costs that make the distribution anything but infinite. Further, when you consider administration, credit card fees, and so on, none of the transactions are free. Therefore, we have no infinite. The marginal costs to produce another unit still exist, and as such, we don't have infinite distribution.

We may have a more efficient distribution model than say shiny discs, but we still have the same issues that relate to actually having commerce.

"Back at you, sunshine. In fact, I think you're the champ around here. We all acknowledge that fact."

So now that I have proven your post wrong from end to end, I thin you would have to admit that you are at least stupider than I am.

Re:

People want these laws about as much as they want 95+ year copy protection lengths. These laws don't exist because most people want them, they exist because a small hand full of people want them. They are about as publicly wanted as taxi cab monopolies and all of the other government established monopolies, the government passes these laws not to serve the public interest but to serve the interests of the few. You act like it's impossible for bad laws, that people don't want, to get passed but clearly they do get passed. There are more people who don't want these laws than the number of people who do.

If so many people really cared strongly enough about IP laws then they would naturally follow copy protection principles without the need for laws requiring them to and the people violating these laws would be a minority too small for Hollywood et al to care about. If piracy is such a huge problem then perhaps it's because people don't respect these laws strongly enough and if that's the case then a representative government should consider reducing their scope.

Re:

I disagree.

I believe that the problem is that people go to vote for president and then vote for EVERYONE else based on what party they adhere to. This is why we get SO many unqualified, clueless "representatives" in out government(s) *all levels*.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"See, because you play ignorant, you don't understand the implications of own words.

Torrent sites exist only because of piracy - without piracy, without the "free hollywood / software / music content" bonanza, nobody would bother to install something that leeches off half their bandwidth every month.

Without piracy, there would be no audience for torrents. There would be no magical "infinite distribution", and the game would be over."

Torrent sites exist for a plethora of reasons. You are aware Linux distros are made available on torrent sites right? By the Linux distributors themselves. Ditto music. Plenty of independent artists put their own music up themselves. In fact, if you install the latest uTorrent and add an app or two to it, you'll find their are quite a few artists specific releases. As in the artists wants you to download their music freely, the app just cuts out having to visit the sites. Video game developers have as of late started offering patches as well as updates through bittorrent, some directly on various torrent sites. To save themselves cost and make it easier for people to receive the downloads. Their are also numerous independently produced shows and films distributed SOLELY through those same sites. Not too mention numerous freeware/open source programs.

So, obviously DESPITE actual piracy, there is a market for these sites and for the products available on them. The infinite distribution for this material I just mentioned would still exist and the game would be anything but over.

"Sorry, but Itunes is very limited distribution - not infinite. They can make and distribute copies for a low price (but never zero). Bandwidth, server, electricity... it's all costs that make the distribution anything but infinite. Further, when you consider administration, credit card fees, and so on, none of the transactions are free. Therefore, we have no infinite. The marginal costs to produce another unit still exist, and as such, we don't have infinite distribution.

We may have a more efficient distribution model than say shiny discs, but we still have the same issues that relate to actually having commerce."

Ignoring the cost associated with distributing the content, the content itself can be distributed infinitely. You're trying to justify your point by bringing in other irrelevant nonsense. As I said, all businesses have cost to run. Ignoring that, online distribution of content is infinite. The content can only run out if it stops being produced, but everything that's out there now can keep being distributed. This is what I mean by infinite distribution. You're trying to change meanings to suit your argument.

"So now that I have proven your post wrong from end to end, I thin you would have to admit that you are at least stupider than I am."

Actually, you've proven me wrong not in the least. What you have proven is that you are quite biased and are unaware of the many uses of P2P technology and websites that are legitimate and legal. Also, it should read "stupider than I" to be grammatically correct (I also would've accepted "stupid than me"). It also doesn't help that you wrote "thin" instead of "think" (which I'm assuming is what you meant to write). Further evidence against you in the "who is stupider" category. I THINK you are stupider than I could ever hope to be.

Donny, you're out of your element." I suggest you find someone else to play with, I'll run circles around you as far as intelligence and actual knowledge (of many things) goes.

It's been fun, but I'm done here. You can't be talked to, not because you won't listen. But because I hate wasting my time and knowledge with someone too stupid/biased to think past whatever thoughts it is they have. It's pointless.

Re: Re: Re:

You have it exactly upside down!
It's the tiny minority that wants SOPA and the vast majority that doesn't want it.
And don't most people support OWS? There are plenty of people who've been brainwashed into thinking they are lazy hippies wanting a handout, but they will realise eventually (probably too late) that they are (or should be) on the same side.

Re: Re: Re:

Because what Masnick and the rest of the Google astro turfing groups are doing is disgusting. Using lies about censoring the internet and scare tactics because they have faulty business models based on piracy.

Slimeballs.

You have an interesting ( to an anthropologist) way of constructing comments. It reminds me of cargo cult religions. You take the comments of your opponents, extract superficial pattern of words, remove the underlying meaning and then regurgitate the same in a sort of backwards way, laced with insults and mild profanity. Hmm, curious?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

You not realize you shot your own argument in the foot? You are saying it is hard to get people out to support some things and point to the Occupy movement and how small a % of the population it is. Yes a lot more people care about Occupy movement than are actually out protesting. Just like not everyone against this bill has called and voiced their opinion. So all these calls going in against this bill only represent a small group of those who are against it. Those for it have not been able to rally even a fraction of the numbers of those against it.

Re: Re:

Over 3 million in the US alone attended the Occupy protests across the nation. Last I checked, the US population was slightly less than 300m. so that's more than 1% (admittedly, still not a majority, but not the 0.000001% the AC claimed.

Why do you folks insist on insults and the pillaging and murdering of factual evidences?

Re: Re: Re:

i thought you wanted people to "call in." You don't even have to get out of your chair to do that. And wait a second: why is it sizzlier to call in to speak out against a bill than in favor of it? Citation, please. Like, for example, something proving that referendums which put a "tough on crime" law up for a vote more often result in the bills being killed than passed? Or...anything at all?

Re: Re: Re:

The whole internet will be classed as "foreign". Just you wait. That's how the little traitorous shitheels will get around that.

What you fail to understand "idiot" is that the standards to take action are higher under SOPA than for US infringing sites. So if anything, Justice would have an easier time if they pursued a site under existing law than SOPA. More FUDpacking from one of Masnick's fanboy toadies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The point this pinhead made was that rights holders/DOJ would seek to prefer to act against rogue sites under SOPA than existing law. That's simply untrue. Side by side, existing law is a far more effective tool. However, it is not conclusive on non-US websites. That's why the MPAA (as well as hundreds of other businesses and unions) support the bill.

Re:

Would these be the same crying towels we were all going to need when "SOPA is going to pass and be law in a week's time and that'll put a stop to your wild west internet days"?

Because that was like 3 weeks ago. Nothing passed. And if anyone needed those crying towels, I'd say that it was most likely you and the other trolls. You know, because despite your certainty in regards to SOPA flying through like nothing, it didn't happen. 3 weeks later and here we are. Still no SOPA on the books. 3 weeks later, and you're the only one who comes off as crying (and pissing and moaning).

I know you said something similar in another article already, again, same thing, "In a week you'll all need crying towels when SOPA passes." So in a week, when it doesn't, will you go away? Or will you still be coming here? Or will you be too busy wiping those tears of yours with a crying towel or two?

Just asking out of curiosity, seeing as how you've yet to be right about anything. At all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Torrent sites exist only because of piracy - without piracy, without the "free hollywood / software / music content" bonanza, nobody would bother to install something that leeches off half their bandwidth every month.

Without piracy, there would be no audience for torrents. There would be no magical "infinite distribution", and the game would be over.

Let's look at the economics shall we:

Bit Torrent technology exists and is freely available to all - whether it was created to enable piracy is (marginally) a moot point - but those who created it deny that that was the reason - and many totally non-pirate related organisations (eg the BBC and several games companies) have used it because it dramatically reduces the cost of distribution compared to direct downloading from a central server.

The actual uses of BT is a cost born entirely by the participants and is simply proportional to their usuage. Whilst you can argue that if there were no piracy their would be less usage - maybe even dramatically so - the legal usage is in no way dependent on the illegal usage and would exist regardless of it.

The Websites that assist the BT infrastructure (eg pirate bay etc) have costs that are proportional to the amount of hits they get/bandwidth they use. If there were no piracy they would get fewer hits, would need less bandwidth and so would have lower costs. If the reduction in traffic were to be as big as you imply then they would be able to operate without ad support - as is the case for many websites operated by voluntary groups(clubs, societies, churches etc). They would still remain visible to the whole world - which is what counts to the independent artist trying to get noticed.

In short the torrent ecosystem is much bigger because of piracy - but it does NOT NEED piracy to exist. Therefore it is unacceptable to allow it to become collateral damage of your enforcement witch hunt.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Without piracy, there would be no audience for torrents. There would be no magical "infinite distribution", and the game would be over.

If I were to have a website, and put an mp3 file on it freely available for download, I have just created that magical infinite distribution.
Until I remove that mp3 from the website, people all over the globe can download it as much as they like from my website. There is no shelving fee, there is no running out of stock. All it takes is some bandwidth, and if I'm smart I use some sort of distributed service like p2p-software or bittorrent software, but it's not necessary to have INFINITE DISTRIBUTION.

You and your fellow copyright-maximalist brethren need a lesson or two on how the internet works, and how copying files on the internet works.